Music is a good example to explain the importance of objectivity in any art form, without objectivity the artist is an enthusiastic sailor without a compass.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this is true, but one sided, subjectivity is a distortion of reality and does not reflect the true nature of reality, if I ask people if they prefer noise to music they would probably say no, and that musical tastes differs, and that what they think is music might sound like noise to other people, but if I had to jump randomly on a piano everyone would agree that it is noise, irrespective of your personal subjective perspective.

All forms of music has melody, harmony and rhythm, qualities noise never have, and if one looks closer at the difference between music and noise, you'll find that chaos [jumping randomly on a piano] and perfect order creates noise as an effect, because there is no variation, like a dripping tap, a ringing telephone no one answers, that irritating singular sound at the same frequency and space between over and over again, thus the question: if neither chaos or perfect order is a reference in defining objectivity in music? Then what the hell is??

That is the right question!!!

Nature is the reference in defining objectivity in any art or science, it is neither perfect nor chaotic, this regularity and rhythm in nature is the same reference musicians and composers have mastered, defining an objective foundation through which many different variations can achieve an aesthetic effect, and that is what they teach in music schools, not music history or mozart's life, or history in general, they teach you how to create and achieve an aesthetic effect using sound, this is also the reason why musicians leaves visual artist an little embarrassed, because although there have existed many brilliant, skilled and talented visual artists, all of them used skill, instinct and talent to create visual aesthetic effects, non of them consciously created aesthetic effects , they did it subconsciously, and that is the difference between all other art and visual art, all other art teach mainly to achieve aesthetic effects, where as visual art is still clueless and unsuccessful in finding any objective grasp on visual aesthetics, and still only teaches art history and nothing about actually creating an aesthetic effect through a visual medium.

And the so called objectivity in visual art is references of people like paul klee and his visual theory or Picasso, and although they might have been talented artist, they did not create the universe or the laws of it!!! It is really ridiculous if you think about it, the absolute ultimate fact is this:

Nature defines objectivity in any art form through the regularity in it's design, this consistency in nature is similar to the fabbionachi sequence and golden ratio, but does not refer to scale or proportional variations or constants, it refers to the prime elementary make up and function of all natural manifestation and phenomena in nature, and can be defined by three words;

rhythmic, balance, interchange, the three laws of creation, not the theories of paul klee or Picasso SORRY!!! What all this means is that any modern education in visual art is nothing but a waste of time, energy and money.